He was overthrown because he didn't kowtow deeply enough in EU negotiations. As in, they wanted to install full-blown IMF-style austerity and privatization of public assets, and they wanted to do it all yesterday. Yanukovich tried to go slower and bargain for more aid and less austerity. He thought they might come back with a counter-offer. Nuland and her masters grew impatient with EU negotiators, then chose a different option...
This is the point in the discussion at which we usually suffer tired invocations of "Ukrainians had agency!" Sure they did, but if we had polled even the most violent of the protesters as to whether they wanted to import enough NATO weapons to cause a war with Russia, very few of them would have agreed. (Probably more would have agreed that it was good to start killing Russian-speakers in Donbas? Well if the poll was taken in Kiev.) Ukraine was a weak polity, without the sort of solidarity required to resist American (and Russian) exploitation of civic divisions. Maybe they imagined that they would escape the fates of similar polities in Hungary, Georgia, Afghanistan, etc. They have not.
That apologia might be more convincing if the word "NATO" appeared anywhere? Every time Putin speaks, he complains about NATO expansion into Ukraine and the resulting missiles pointed at his house from minutes away.
Bullshit. You could replace Putin with any other Russian politician, and their opposition to encirclement by a pact motivated by opposition to Russia would remain. Care to cite anyone we've heard of and not because they murdered a bunch of air passengers?
At the time, not even Putin himself opposed Eastern European countries joining NATO. A few days after further 7 countries in Eastern Europe officially became full members of NATO, Putin met with German Chancellor Schröder and raised no concerns, and even told the press that "every country can choose their security".
The official statement from the Kremlin:
> Russia has not expressed any fears for its own security over NATO expansion. However, said the President, Russia will design its defence policy with due account of the fact that NATO is moving closer to its borders. Modern threats cannot be removed by increasing the number of NATO member countries, the President noted. However, Russia’s relations with the North Atlantic alliance were developing in a positive way. The Russian head of state expressed hope that any issues that arose would be solved within the Russia-NATO Council. -- http://www.en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/30678
Not a word about being under threat by NATO, "reckless NATO expansion", "encirclement" or "broken promises", all of which were invented after Putin consolidated power and his policy shifted towards conquering the former Eastern Bloc countries to restore the lost empire.
No. The security architecture of Europe remained the same until Russia started the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. No new signifcant NATO members, no significant troop or weapon deployments, no policy changes. Cold War stockpiles were dismantled to cut costs and NATO was so stagnant that French president Macron even called it braindead.
Well that's the problem, you're wrong to think nothing has changed in 20 years. The world is a very different place. So your assumption is incorrect and that helps explain your position.
Alright, in the interests of educating I would point out that the US financed and fomented a coup in Ukraine in 2014 to install a pro-US government, which then lead to the Constitution of Ukraine being rewritten so that NATO membership was back on the board.
That's a pretty big fucking change. Imagine Mexico or Canada suddenly having a pro-Chinese government installed and the CCCP forming a military alliance with them. You think the US might see that as a threat? Oh but this is different because the US can be trusted not to interfere abroad lol..
Meanwhile, the people in Crimea and the Donbass region being heavily Russian did not want any part of that CIA-backed Western interventionism that we've used to destroy vast parts of the world. Crimeans then voted to be annexed to Russia while Donetsk and Luhansk tried to break away as independent of Ukraine. The people in these regions DO NOT want to be a US puppet and that shouldn't be hard for us to understand considering our track record. Not that Russia's track record is much better, but at least they associate themselves with Russia. Better the devil you know as they say.
So then the US-backed government in Kiev who has been at war with their own citizens in Donbass and killing them for 8 years decided to cut off the water to Crimea and run their reservoirs dry, leading up to the invasion last year.
Remember this next time you hear our fucking talking heads on CNN & FOX News parrot the same "totally unprovoked invasion" talking point.
Which countries in the world do not recognize the current government of Ukraine and all preceding governments since 2014 as the legitimate governments of Ukraine?
Which countries recognize the independence of Luhansk and Donetsk?
If both answers are "Russia, Syria and North Korea", then I'd re-evaluate my views if I were you. The unprecedented international isolation of Russia and the total lack of support for its narratives speaks for itself.[1][2] Even Taliban voted against Russia, and I don't think anyone could argue that they have much sympathy towards "CIA-backed Western interventionism".
> Which countries recognize the independence of Luhansk and Donetsk?
Which countries recognize Kosovo, and now tell me how that's different? Hint: because we said so. And that's it.
Also, I love how you claimed nothing has changed in the last 20 years and then didn't refute a single thing I said showing how wrong you are, because you can't. We were behind a coup on their border and we pretend to be surprised that the Russkis didn't like it? lol k
There is nothing to refute. Kosovo is recognized by 101 UN members (out of 193). The narrative you described is a fiction that nobody in the world shares, not even Belarus is fully behind it (doesn't recognize LNR and DNR).
Well no, it's a fact that we were behind the coup. The question is why wouldn't you think it's obvious that Russia would have a problem with that?
It's also a fact that Kiev cutoff the water supply to Crimea. The question is, why wouldn't you think it's obvious that Russia would have a problem with that?
So knowing this, how can you say the response from Russia was "totally unprovoked" when we did everything we could to provoke it?
Also, the only difference between Kosovo being recognized by more countries is because the US wants it that way, and we get our way in the UN with most countries. But Kosovo doesn't deserve independence any more than the people of the Donbas, do they?
> Well no, it's a fact that we were behind the coup.
There was no coup and no-one recognizes it as such.
> It's also a fact that Kiev cutoff the water supply to Crimea. The question is, why wouldn't you think it's obvious that Russia would have a problem with that?
Don't invade other countries and you won't have to deal with such issues.
> the only difference between Kosovo being recognized by more countries is because the US wants it that way
The US is not all-powerful and has a long history of initiatives that have failed to gain traction despite best efforts to build support. But never before has Russia been in such international isolation. No-one besides Syria and North Korea find their narrative convincing.
Why no-one supports Russia, not even countries that are usually sympathetic?
> Don't invade other countries and you won't have to deal with such issues.
Crimeans voted to be annexed to Russia. Are we not supporting their right to self-determination? Let me guess, this is different?
Also, when you talk about not invading other countries do you not realize the irony of that when we have invaded more countries in the last 50 years than the rest of the world combined?
I am not "we the US". I was born in the USSR and I live in Eastern Europe.
> ..and on and on.
You can write anything you want on a website. Mafia shot Kennedy. Moon landing was faked. Covid doesn't exist. It doesn't make it true. Nor is salon.com authoritative source for assessing legitimacy of a government. I've set the benchmark to how many UN members endorse the view, and Russia has unprecedented lack of support for their current narrative, be it the illegitimacy of Ukraine's government, independence of LNR and DNR, or the Crimean referendum.
> Crimeans voted to be annexed to Russia. Are we not supporting their right to self-determination? Let me guess, this is different?
Again, virtually no-one recognizes it. The majority of United Nations, 100 countries, voted for a resolution calling this a mock referendum. Only 11 countries opposed: Russia, Syria, North Korea and a few other failed states.
The only argument you could possibly come up with is that for a decade, the US has somehow managed to force the whole world against Russia, from tiny Pacific island nations to India and China (including even Taliban!), but that's an obvious nonsense. No-one wields such power. Could it be that Russia is... just wrong? Violating every norm of international relations to a degree that it has lost all support it ever had among other countries?
If you think that the US controls foreign policy of almost all 193 members of the United Nations, including some if its greatest rivals like China, then this is just another view not supported by reality.
US de facto controls foreign policy through the UN and other international orgs for a majority of countries on earth. China and Russia are the two largest exceptions. We use economic pressure like a bully. This is a fact that nobody would dispute. You can agree with the aims of the US without pretending that we don't force other nations to do our bidding all the time.
Meanwhile, you never addressed the point that the US invades more nations than anybody else. Why are you ignoring that?
Yup, a coup on their border. One that directly impacted the majority Russian regions of Ukraine including Crimeans who voted to be annexed to Russia since they're mostly all Russian. We recognize Kosovo who did the same thing, but not Crimea. There is no difference.
Then Ukraine cut off water supplies to Crimea which eventually led to the more recent invasion after the reservoirs had almost run out.
Remember that next time you hear our State controlled media parroting the "totally unprovoked invasion" line.
